I don't think resurecting the stable packages will provide any long term good.
If I understand correctly, the original issue was that the stable packages were lacking so much behind that they could not build on newer kernel. Maintainer had to patch them to make them wok on newer version and it was finally decided that instead of patching them in a untested way we would be much better and stable to use the git version that work on newer kernel.
If I am not mistaken, the packages for zfs-git was always specifying the same git commit even across kernel upgrade. This provided a consistent version that would work for newer kernel version and won't introduce new development bugs.
Now that a new stable version exists, let's just point this zfs-git to that specific tag and be done with it. When a future kernel is released and 0.7.3 can still build on it, then let's keep it. When a future kernel is released and the current 0.7.3 version can't build on it, then we'll just bump the package version to use a newer development commit ? kernel incompatibility seems to have a high chance of happening so resurecting the stable packages then to delete them again seems pointless. Your thoughts ?
Search Criteria
Package Details: zfs-linux-headers 2.3.2_6.14.6.arch1.1-1
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/zfs-linux.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | zfs-linux |
Description: | Kernel headers for the Zettabyte File System. |
Upstream URL: | https://openzfs.org/ |
Keywords: | kernel linux openzfs zfs |
Licenses: | CDDL |
Conflicts: | spl-dkms, spl-dkms-git, spl-headers, zfs-dkms, zfs-dkms-git, zfs-dkms-rc, zfs-headers |
Provides: | spl-headers, zfs-headers |
Submitter: | demizer |
Maintainer: | lightdot |
Last Packager: | lightdot |
Votes: | 276 |
Popularity: | 1.29 |
First Submitted: | 2016-04-21 08:45 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2025-05-11 21:15 (UTC) |
Dependencies (4)
- kmod (kmod-gitAUR)
- linux
- zfs-utilsAUR (zfs-utils-gitAUR, zfs-linux-gitAUR, zfs-utils-staging-gitAUR)
- linux-headers (make)
Required by (0)
Sources (1)
Latest Comments
« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .. 79 Next › Last »
timemaster commented on 2014-06-19 01:31 (UTC)
justinkb commented on 2014-06-19 00:47 (UTC)
Well, this is interesting:
* zfsonlinux 0.6.3 has been released
* kernel 3.15 has landed in [core]
I checked and 0.6.3 supports 3.15 without any patches. Maybe it's time to bring back the non-git spl/spl-utils/zfs/zfs-utils packages.
demizer commented on 2014-06-07 17:50 (UTC)
The scripts have been fixed and the archiso packages have been updated.
demizer commented on 2014-06-07 17:18 (UTC)
Hi, I have not updated the archiso zfs packages hosted at demizerone.com because I forgot. My "reminder" was broken and wasn't sending the email. I am working on it now. Sorry!
khenderick commented on 2014-06-07 05:17 (UTC)
@zidarsk8: That's most likely because ZFS is build against a specific kernel, being the latest available. The Archlinux installer ISO is most of the time an older snapshot and thus most of the time incompatible with this package.
For use with the Archlinux install ISO, I advise to use demizer's repositories: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#demz-repo-archiso as there is one for the main kernel (a pre-build zfs-git) and one (and this is where it's interesting for you) for the current Archlinux installer ISO.
zidarsk8 commented on 2014-06-06 23:21 (UTC)
installing zfs-git with yaourt on the new archlinux-2014.06.01-dual.iso
I can't get modprobe zfs to work
root@archiso ~ # modprobe zfs
1 root@archiso ~ # depmod -a :(
depmod: ERROR: could not open directory /lib/modules/3.14.4-1-ARCH: No such file or directory
depmod: FATAL: could not search modules: No such file or directory
root@archiso ~ # find / -iname "zfs.ko"
/var/abs/local/yaourtbuild/zfs-git/src/zfs/module/zfs/zfs.ko
/var/abs/local/yaourtbuild/zfs-git/pkg/zfs-git/usr/lib/modules/3.14.5-1-ARCH/extra/zfs/zfs.ko
/usr/lib/modules/3.14.5-1-ARCH/extra/zfs/zfs.ko
root@archiso ~ # insmod /usr/lib/modules/3.14.5-1-ARCH/extra/zfs/zfs.ko
insmod: ERROR: could not insert module /usr/lib/modules/3.14.5-1-ARCH/extra/zfs/zfs.ko: Unknown symbol in module
1 root@archiso ~ # zpool create zroot /dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_HM641JI_S26XJ9DB746224-part1
Failed to load ZFS module stack. :(
Load the module manually by running 'insmod <location>/zfs.ko' as root.
kerberizer commented on 2014-05-16 12:16 (UTC)
@*david_a*: The "easiness" depends on what datasets you have. If /etc and /usr/{bin,lib} are on your root dataset, then solving the problem is simply a matter of "ln -s /usr/lib/systemd/system/zfs.target /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/zfs.target" and then rebooting. If not, then @ejstacey's advice is probably the best one to take.
ejstacey commented on 2014-05-16 10:32 (UTC)
david_a: Not sure this counts as "easy", but when I need to fix stuff (with zfs root) I mount the latest arch zfs, get the zfs repos installed, install zfs/spl, mount zfs, and chroot to my system.
Instructions are here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ZFS#Emergency_chroot_repair_with_archzfs
Pinned Comments
lightdot commented on 2025-02-04 21:19 (UTC) (edited on 2025-05-03 17:07 (UTC) by lightdot)
This package will be kept in sync with the openzfs latest stable release and the kernels officially supported by it.
For the supported kernel versions, refer to the respective openzfs release notes (LINK).
E.g. openzfs 2.3.2 supports kernel versions 4.18 - 6.14. When kernel 6.15 is released for Arch, zfs-linux will not be updated until the openzfs project announces that it's compatible. This will most likely happen with the next openzfs release.
The kernel compatibility of the upcoming openzfs release can be seen in their META file (LINK).
For those wishing to use openzfs with unsupported kernels, do note that this could lead to serious issues, including data loss, even though such a zfs-linux package might build and install cleanly. Have reliable backups and use such a package at your peril.
Please do not mark this package as out of date without checking the kernel compatibility first. Thank you!